I do think that a distinction must be made between near- and far-field speakers at a minimum. I guess those two categories would generally correlate with floor- vs. table-mounted, too.

However, I (personally) think this dichotomy is still limiting and would prefer a breakdown into types. Just in terms of my limited imagination about speakers, we already have: speakers bundled with a hi-fi, n.1 surround, PA speakers, computer speakers, monitors, docks…

I recognise the danger of not getting too bogged-down in semantics and debate rather than just letting the poll progress, but I feel that a good balance, somewhere between too few options and too much complexity, would really enhance the ability of people to participate and provide an interesting set of data.

Me? Not at all! I haven't used any sonic attribute on purpose. It's only a question of how you use, not how much you can enjoy them. As a matter of fact, when one says "hi-fi system" or even "stereo system", as well as "desktop", people think to a rather precise image, without actual direct SQ implications.If we then want not to use the term "fidelity", let's find another one: "floorstanding"? (even if they could be on stands)

Please, do consider also that English is not my first language, so I could very well miss some semantic nuances.

P.S. By the way: some people, me among them, like very much to listen to small, neutral, high fidelity speakers from little distance, comfortably seated on a couch or an armchair. This practice is generally referred to as near field listening opposed to far field listening, where the listener and the speakers are placed toward opposite sides of the room. There are, fidelity wise, many advantages and some drawbacks in doing this.

Edit: reading again your (Greynol's) last post, I agree with those two definitions. And, yes, active/passive play no role.

That was my computer station circa 2001. Under the desk you'll notice 2 filing cabinets, and outside those are 2 3-way floor speakers (similar to the ones on my current home theater). The 3 way speakers on top of the desk are still the speakers I use today. At that time those 4 speakers were all driven by a quad channel receiver at 100W per channel.

Now the 2 top speakers are driven by a 5.1 channel receiver at 100W per channel.

Back then signal was fed from the line out of my computer to the receiver.. Today the signal is S/PDIF to the receiver from the computer..

Would that old setup qualify as desktop speakers or hi-fi? They are used for near-field, and the only signal they ever play comes from my computer., but they are quite obviously not self powered little plastic speakers..

Please consider what the "fi" is hi-fi means. At the same time I will try to remember the silly little hammocks that people used to use to hang speakers from their ceilings, even if it causes me to become slightly nauseated (the silly visual, not being in a hammock).

Anyway, this has been fun. Especially youlord's picture in the previous post. I guess those speakers are adequately shielded.

What kind of 3-way bookshelf speakers are those that were on your desktop? (...also: if you still have that Seventh Son of a Seventh Son tapestry would you please send it to me? Seriously though; that's my absolute favorite Iron Maiden album. It's a tough call but it wins in my opinion. NotB would be next on my list.)

Was quite taken by Nessuno suggestion of classification by the physical posture of the listener. i.e.

I first refrained from suggesting another one based on listener's state of mind in approaching music reproduced by speakers (i.e. relaxed, attentive, careless, concentrated on something else...) as it would have been too subjectivist and maybe against TOS#8.

So, what should we add? Note that there are only 3 slots left in the speaker poll.

Studio monitors

PA speakers

Surround sound speakers

I thought of exactly three other types to suggest, and they were exactly these three.

I think these would help a lot and [crosses fingers] cover most users.

A category-based classification (near, far, floor, table, etc.) might be more inclusive in theory, but at least to me, it seems like it would be quite nightmarish to agree on options and avoid glaring exceptions, someone’s unique hybrid technology, semantics, and so on.

So, what should we add? Note that there are only 3 slots left in the speaker poll.

Studio monitors

PA speakers

Surround sound speakers

Isn't really meaningful. My speakers are called 'monitors', but I don't listen in the near field, and I do use 5 of them to make a surround system. Any speaker can serve as a 'surround sound speaker'. Indeed the 'official' DVD-A /SACD speaker setup recommendation calls for full-range towers all around.

Whether speakers are usefully classified into 'nearfield' or 'farfield' is less clear. I suppose a 'nearfield' speaker would be one designed to sound best in the near field -- meaning it has poor off-axis performance.

In the interest of keeping things straightforward and fairly unambiguous, the following three (well, four) questions are what I would be most interested in for the speaker section:

-How many total speakers (both full range and/or "satellites") are in your main system, even if you may limit the number used, per type of sound reproduction [for example, only using 2 for stereo music]? 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, or more

-How many subs do you have? None, 1, 2, more [Note: A full range speaker with a dedicated input for a sub signal counts as a sub]

-Regarding the front left and right main speakers only, did the manufacturer intend them to be used in the near field, far field, either/not sure? ["mid-field" speakers are included in "either/not sure" as well as speakers with a switch for this distinction]

- When listening to 2-channel sources, do you typically use more than just 2 speakers in total? [Sub(s) used not included in your number of speakers.]

Things I don't personally care about: size, ipod docking, are you in a car, cabinet material, stands/shelf/mounting or any other elevation methods, driver complement, amplifier location, marketing/buzz words which don't have strict definitions like "digital ready", "pro", "studio", or "monitor", built-in equalization circuits (not to say that such circuits aren't quite useful in many instances, I just don't think adding categories for them will help keep the poll simple and easy to answer unambiguously).

I can’t conclusively tell from your wording: Did you vote or not? If not, I can allocate your vote now.

Er. To be honest. I voted twice.

So strictly speaking we need to subtract 1 from both 'hi-fi speakers connected to an amp' and 'desktop speakers connected to a sound card' and add 1 to 'stand mount monitor speakers connected to an audio interface' or whatever it has become.

I find it interesting that the people with active monitors connected to an audio interface mostly consider it is a separate category whereas those that don't, er, don't.

So strictly speaking we need to subtract 1 from both 'hi-fi speakers connected to an amp' and 'desktop speakers connected to a sound card' and add 1 to 'stand mount monitor speakers connected to an audio interface' or whatever it has become.

Haha – you’re not the only person who’s asked for this exact change. I’ll do that now.

It is still completely unclear to me as to whether this poll is trying to determine what types of speakers people use, how they are being used/misused or both (or neither?). What is the point exactly?

The first question asks about devices, to me this would mean something along the lines of a player which, in keeping with the title of the poll would contain speakers (eg: tablet, boom-box, laptop, home theater system). Why not use a less vague term to describe types of transducers since that is what is being listed. Now let's look at the devices listed and relate them to the follow-up questions. The last three items in the first question are specific entries in the third question, whereas the first item in the first question is the general category of the second question which is essentially already captured as a null vote in the second question. This is a mess!

We could fix this by changing the first question to "Which do you use to listen to music most often?" and give speakers and headphones as the only two options. Unfortunately this leaves out some things I'm personally interested in knowing, which is whether people are still using conventional types of sound systems such as two-channel stereos, multichannel home theaters and personal media players or are they moving towards things like tablets and laptops (using the built-in speakers). What about >2 channel audio? Is it becoming more popular, less popular or is it staying the same? In other words, I like that the word "devices" is being used, but wish that it was actually being used in a broader sense instead of being just a synonym for transducer.

Oh, and another speaker type to throw in the mix (since that appears to be the trend of the conversation irrespective of my stated concern about the point of the poll) which is getting increasingly popular these days: sound bars.

At first it seemed to me the emphasis was more on listening habits than on specific devices: speakers or headphones, at home from a conventional system, from desktop speakers while using a PC, at work, walking, driving, commuting etc... and if you give a look at page #1 of this thread you'll find that this is the way people started answering, until someone started asking where to put his very specific gear and geekness found its way in!

Now if, say, someone likes to listen to Pubblic Address systems at home, fine, simply in spite of the definition they are not used for pubblic address, but the (my?) question is still: does she/he uses them to listen "the old way" (which is, like it or not, far-field) or "the multimedia PC age way" (which is near-field, isn't it)?

I also told that it's about ten years now I use a PC as my first source and still I don't have speakers on top of my desk, so swapping a TT with a CD player and then with a PC didn't change that much my listening habits. And far/near filed is only a way to see things for simplicity sake, not an absolute category: I am the first exception, because as I said I like to listen near-field with conventional systems and in conventional ways (that is sitting on a couch, concentrating on music, relaxing... even petting with my lady! )

Maybe I'm biased by age, I remember when the choices for not too weird SQ where between an "hi-fi system" or a cassette Walkman and so my expectations on poll answers are different from others and even from Skamp's ones.

By the way: Skamp, what do you exactly wanted to know from people round here when you conceived this poll?

By the way: Skamp, what do you exactly wanted to know from people round here when you conceived this poll?

How they listen to music and what they use. I'm not sure why some people are confused, and they're confusing the hell out of me!Edit: I guess some of you would be more comfortable with one poll listing devices, and another listing usages.

It is still completely unclear to me as to whether this poll is trying to determine what types of speakers people use, how they are being used/misused or both (or neither?). What is the point exactly?

Well, I don't see the point of web surveys at all, since there is never any possibility of a random sample and so no possible way to generalize the results. Since this kind of poll doesn't have any scientific value, I wonder why it is even available on H.A. Is it not removable in the software?

What kind of speakers do you use for listening to music? Speakers, headphones, IEMs, earbuds… Multiple choices are allowed to reflect different use cases.

Pardon my late entry here, I am a forum newbie. I chose headphones / laptop speakers / circumaural (stationary). I do virtually all of my listening through headphones versus speakers since I live in an apartment complex and don't want to bother anyone. I got a pair of Sennheiser HD598s recently and I don't think I can ever go back to anything else as the sound quality has been simply amazing so far. Personally I've never been a fan of earbuds or other in-ear 'phones for various reasons.